Showing posts with label WWF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WWF. Show all posts

Saturday, March 24, 2018

Earth Hour 9, Hate-love of fossil fuels

Another #EarthHour today, an annual global campaign by the WWF. Darkness is either good or bad. If good, then people should do it nightly or many hours a night like North Korea, not just 1 hour/year. And #fossilfuel is either good or bad. If bad, then people should stay off-grid because the grid transmits and distributes 50% of all PH electricity coming from coal power, another 20% coming from oil and natural gas, both fossil fuels. One cannot say "Fossil fuel is bad but I'll keep using it anyway". That hypocrisy and double talk is like saying that "Corruption and stealing is bad but I'll keep doing it anyway." #CCC, #WWF, #AlGore, #UN, #DENR, #Greenpeace.

See also WWF double talk here. It wants a "zero-carbon world", fine.  People, companies, foundations, governments, UN agencies, should donate/send more money to the WWF to help attain this goal.


Then WWF officials and people are into frequent global climate talks/meetings. Fine, they should be riding solar planes, giant kites, uber-brooms or uber-witches, to move across countries and continents. They hate CO2-emitting oil used by commercial planes, buses and cars; they hate CO2-emitting coal, oil and gas power plants.


And WWF, GPeace, many other environmental activist groups are also campaigners of "climate justice" movement. They demand "system change" -- referring to change from capitalist system to socialist or communist system. Cool.


The main purpose of Earth Hour campaign is to sustain climate alarmism, to keep scaring, fooling and milking the people of "man-made" warming/climate change so we need "man-made" solutions via more government, more UN, more carbon/coal/oil taxes, more climate loans (World Bank, ADB Philippines), more climate bureaucracies, more/frequent global climate junkets.

For them, there is little or no such thing as "nature-made" warming/CC. They deny that CC is natural; deny that CC is cyclical; deny that global cooling can happen after global warming; deny that the Sun, galactic cosmic rays, clouds and water vapor, ocean oscillation, other natural factors are big drivers of climate; deny that CO2 is a useful and non-pollutant gas. They are the big deniers then turn their fingers around so that large-scale climate robbery and trillions of $ scam will continue.
--------------

See also: 
Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change?, March 29, 2015 
Earth Hour 7, Lesson in basic electrical engineering, March 21, 2016 

Earth Hour 8, Celebrate darkness vs modernization, March 23, 2017

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Earth Hour 8, Celebrate darkness vs modernization

Earth Hour 2017 by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is two days away and yet last night, while I was having dinner with my daughter at a resto at SM Mall of Asia (MOA), the waiter informed us that they will shut off the lights from 7.30 - 8.30pm, for "Earth Hour", we can transfer to a table outside where the mall's exterior and street lights are on and bright. I said they should have informed me earlier so I could cancel my order because I don't believe in that stupid "celebrate darkness" campaign. Waiter went out, talked to management, came back and said they wont shut off the lights inside, only the shop sign outside. Good.

For me, this is the best EH photo. Celebrate darkness even for 1 hour is idiotic. But since campaigners do not really shut off lights 100%, only about 50% so they can have their speeches and singing to protect the planet from the "evils of fossil fuels" as they went to various venues on cars, buses, motorcycles that run on fossil fuel, it's only a half-idiotic campaign.


If "celebrate darkness" to "save the planet" is a good thing, then campaigners like WWF and Henry Sy family should do it every night, 365 nights a year, not just 1 hour a year. Darkness is the bliss of cave men and women, and double talk people among us who criticize if not hate modernity but cannot shake off their love affair with facebook, youtube, emails, cars, plane rides, etc.

Electricity and modernity allowed us to have a wealthier, more comfortable world. If people think riding cars or buses or jeeps that run on fossil fuel is bad, they should stop riding those vehicles and use only bicycles, skateboards and running shoes.

EH is not an ordinary "awareness campaign", rather it is one of the major anti-fossil fuel, kill coal, over-tax oil campaigns. Which have implicit and explicit ramifications in our energy, transportation and industrialization policies. Expensive electricity from unstable, intermittent sources should be embraced by the public. Even if those intermittent sources can ensure blackouts 100% if back up fossil fuel plants are not around.

Climate change (CC) is about global warming, global cooling, warming, cooling,... endless cycles for the past 4.6 billion years. With or without humans and their cars, malls, boats, planes and coal or nuke power plants. CC is natural or nature-made, not man-made.

One friend complained why I cannot respect the other view. Well for private citizens or civil society actions without national and global coercion, I don't mind. But those campaigns and advocacies have plenty of coercive components, like us taxpayers paying for the endless global climate meetings and junkets by government climate and environment officials and their staff, their offices and perks. Or government forcing us to pay higher electricity bills monthly to give endless subsidies to renewables.

Another friend argued that we humans are "hastening changes that in turn threaten our very existence." Uhmmm, exactly 101 years before Haiyan/Yolanda, Nov. 1912, also in Leyte, when total PH population that time was perhaps only 10M or less, when CO2 concentration was much lower, these things happened.


The WWF, Greenpeace, other groups make huge money by deceiving and convincing the public that if there are less rain, no rain or no flood, there is scary "man-made" CC so people should send them money. If there are more rains, more flood, there is also scary "man-made" CC so people should send them money. They campaign to fight less rain and more rain, fight less flood and more flood, fight less cold and more cold, fight less snow and more snow. Whatever the weather and climate, we should be scared and worried and alarmed, and they are the big planet saviours.

So the EH is part of a global fund raising campaign. WWF positions itself as a big planet saviour so it needs big money. CC alarmism, ditching the natural and cyclical nature of CC is about 95% political science and 5% climate science. The ultimate goal is more government, more UN, more global ecological central planning. That is why it is common to see WWF officials migrating to high government officials and vice versa.
------------

See also:
Earth Hour 5: Celebrating Darkness is not Wise, March 30, 2012 

Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change?, March 29, 2015 
Earth Hour 7, Lesson in basic electrical engineering, March 21, 2016

Monday, March 21, 2016

Earth Hour 7, Lesson in basic electrical engineering

Another Earth Hour drama the other day. The WWF guys, their buddies, should do it nightly, 365 nights a year, and several hours a night if possible. Better yet, they should have an office in North Korea where EH is a nightly reality for many of its neighbors.

A good satellite photo of Europe and Africa, same time zones. Darkness is cool? Am laughing.



I am reposting a nice intro to basic electrical  engineering, from my engineer-economist friend, Cynthia Hernandez. Cynthia gave me permission to repost this. Thanks Cynths.
-----------

March 20, 2016

Scene in the house last night:
Mother: (looks at clock) Naku! 8:30 na! We have to turn off the lights for Earth Hour.
Me: (launches into my Earth Hour rant*)
End result: Lights and aircon stay ON! Woohoo!

*Earth Hour rant (slightly) condensed: Electricity is not just the Demand side. You turn off the lights, your meter runs slightly less, and you think, "Hurrah, I saved ×× kWh less, yey me, I'm such an Earth Warrior!" Then you pat yourself on the back and not think about the environment for the rest of the year.

However, on the Supply side, the huge generators that have to run to feed the Nation's addiction to OTWOL (or whatever is the current obsession. I don't watch TV so maybe that gives me environmentalist points?) don't stop spinning. Why? If you're running your car at 100 kph, you don't brake to 0 kph in 1 second, right? And these generators are engines that are a million times larger and more complex.

So, when everybody turns off their lights, generators don't spontaneously use less fossil fuel. They are not designed like that. Especially if demand is expected to pick up again after an hour. Most likely scenario is that they are still running in reserve mode and burning fossil fuels as they do so.

Thus, the glowing news articles that appear a day after Earth Hour saying "Hey, you brave Earth-saving person, you saved xxx tons of CO2 from going into the air!" are simplistic. You might not be getting billed for that electricity, but the infrastructure that delivers that electricity to you has only slowed down slightly.

If you really want to make an impact, don't use electricity for an ENTIRE DAY. That means not subjecting the electric grid to the stress of an hourlong demand drop. The system operators, that have to take extraordinary measures so that your appliances don't get fried by a massive voltage surge, will thank you. That is, if you can stand to be without electricity in this heat. Good luck with that.

#‎ThinkBeforeGoingOnABandwagon #‎ILoveElectricity #‎EarthHourIsStupid
------------

Meanwhile, this quote is from Bjorn Lomborg, he tweeted it. Cool.



Global ecological socialism -- the main goal of climate alarmism and the "man-made" or anthropogenic warming/climate change -- is deceptive and lousy, they wish to see more, bigger governments. The WWF, Greenpeace, the United Nations, other big international campaigners are simply saying, "save the planet... (send more money to us)." 
------------

See also:
Earth Hour 3: Letter to WWF-EH Campaign Leaders, March 21, 2011
Earth Hour 4: WWF-EH Censoring Critical Comments, March 30, 2011 

Earth Hour 5: Celebrating Darkness is not Wise, March 30, 2012 

Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change?, March 29, 2015

Climate Tricks 51, The CCC, Greenpeace and fossil fuels, February 01, 2016
Wind power, flattened mountain ridges, collapsed towers, March 08, 2016
Energy 60, PH solar companies, PagIBIG loan for solar, March 12, 2016

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Energy 46, Dominance of coal power worldwide

Double talk is a perennial practice and characteristic of the "kill fossil fuels, save the planet" movement. They frequently jet-set to many countries and continents yearly on airplanes that run 100% on petroleum then lambast petroleum; they stay in huge, glitzy and brightly-lighted cities and hotels that are often dependent on coal and natural gas then lambast coal, natural gas and fossil fuels. And so they actually contribute to more global dependence on  coal and natural gas.

The Washington Post ran a story last October 12, 2015, As appetite for electricity soars, the world keeps turning to coal. It is a climate alarmist story and yet the authors recognize that as of 2012, the world -- rich, middle income and poor countries combined -- was dependent on 68% fossil fuels (coal + natural gas + oil) for their electricity needs. The 21% renewables are largely "old renewables" like big hydro and geothermal. The "new renewables" like wind and solar should contribute something like 2-4% of total.


In terms of total global electricity output from 1980 to 2012 (32 years), the biggest increase in GWh are (1) coal with 6.1 M and (2) natural gas with 4.1 M. Percentage wise, biggest increase were recorded by nat gas and nuke.


So although it is a climate alarmism article, there is honesty in recognizing that if people want more and stable electricity, fossil fuels are inevitable and reliable energy sources.

From a nice US Chamber of Commerce article last October 16, 2015, There Are Gigawatts of Good Reasons to Still Mine Coal, this table is lifted from the World Coal Association.

Top 10 countries -- coal fired power station build


* Globally, there are 510 coal-fired power plants under construction, with a further 1,874 planned, a total of 2,384.
* China, India, Indonesia dominate making up 71% of the total
* Philippines, Vietnam, Turkey and Pakistan bring up the total up to 81% 
* Europe and America play a very small role.

source: World Coal Association

It is good that despite heavy lobbying by the "kill coal, save the planet" movement led by Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Oxfam, Sierra Club and other big environmental groups, with indirect (and sometimes direct) blessings and funding of the UN, ADB, WB, etc., the three big ASEAN countries Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam realize that it is not possible for them to grow fast if they will shun cheaper and stable energy sources like coal.

In the US, despite echo-pronouncements by the Obama administration, the biggest economy in the world is 70% dependent on coal and natural gas (35% each) for its electricity needs as of July 2015. This data is from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), October 07, 2015.


To glorify darkness -- like the "Earth Hour" annual campaign of the WWF -- is lousy.  Idiotic too. Where there are more dark streets because electricity prices are high and power sources are unstable, there are more crimes and road accidents that happen. And they normally victimize the poor. It is the poor who have no cars and must walk even  in dark streets at night. And thieves, rapists and murderers prefer darkness than lighted streets.

Where there are frequent brownouts due to insufficient baseload power plants (like coal, nat gas, nuke and big hydro), more people use candles. And there are more fires, more deaths and destruction of properties. Or there are more expensive and noisy generator sets that run on... fossil fuel diesel.

The climate alarmism, anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel movement is clearly an anti-poor, anti-development, pro-ecological socialism movement.
-----------

See also:

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Climate Tricks 44, Scary predictions in 2009

We should be scared, very scared, very worried, of "man-made" warming and climate change. Hence, we should send more money to governments, the UN, Al Gore, WWF,Greenpeace, other planet saviours. We should accept more government environmental regulations, taxation, energy cronyism, and they will save the planet for us. 

Below are predictions by some noted climate crusaders. Links and screen shots of headlines are given for verification. Enjoy. Err, be worried. :-) 
---------

On January 2009 (6 1/2 years ago), top climate alarmist US scientist James Hansen said we should have "global flooding, widespread species loss... collapse of ice sheets..." Many of us should have drowned or been mutilated, not today but twi years ago. Very bright, precise, prediction.

Also 6 years ago, October 2009, the WWF (and its planet saviours in the PH like Lory Tan, Yeb Sano, Vince Perez, etc.) said the "point of no return" was last year, not this year or next year. Very bright, precise prediction. http://www.abc.net.au/.../five-years-to-save.../1108482

And also 6 years ago, March 2009, Prince Charles said ("man-made") global warming has already reached a defining moment. Very bright, precise prediction. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Global-warming-has-reached...


July 2009 or 74 months ago, Prince Charles made this bright, bold prediction. We shd be very scared, very worried, only 22 months left... and capitalism and consumerism will kill us. http://www.independent.co.uk/.../just-96-months-to-save...

Former UK PM Gordon Brown beat all of them in giving clear, explicit warning. Only 50 days or end-2009, 50 days, to save the planet. Very bright prediction. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8313672.stm

Hoops, this Canadian MP and member of the Green Party, even beat Mr. Gordon Brown. Not 4 years, not 50 days, but only "hours" to save the planet. Prediction made in March 2009. These guys are very bright in climate predictions.  http://www.thestar.com/.../we_have_hours_to_prevent...

Thanks to this great article by Larry Kummer, posted in WUWT 2 days ago,
Six climate headlines from 2009 that tell us something important about the run-up to the 2015 Paris climate conference
------------- 

See also: 

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change?

To celebrate darkness even for one hour is lousy. More, stable electricity at lower price gave us modern life, including the convenience of the web, blogger, facebook and youtube. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), instigator of "celebrate darkness", "use less energy and electricity" movement, along with the  UN and Greenpeace, should give special awards to North Korea.


The WWF says "change climate change". Huhhh? Climate change is natural and cyclical. Like day-night cycle, dry-wet season cycle, winter-spring-summer-fall cycle, water evaporation-condensation cycle, etc. They want to change that natural cycle?


The WWF, the UN and GP, the triumvirate for climate alarmism, should have offices in Pyongyang.  It's heaven on  earth there, they have little electricity, few power plants from non-renewables, and they use less energy.


The UN says we should send them more money, so they can have more and  endless climate junkets. As the UN and other climate alarmists cause more alarm and public scare, they get more funding, private and taxpayers money. Then use the money to scare and deceive the public more.


Greenpeace US says more lights and electricity creates "man-made" CC. Thus, the solution is to go dark, wow. The offices, the houses of officers and staff of WWF, UN and GP should go dark every night, 365 nights a year and not just one hour a year. That way, they can help save the planet and walk their talk.


Ok, what is the inconvenient truth in climate science? I am posting just four papers from four scientists from four different sources.


The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) contradicted their claim that the 20th century was the warmest ever.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) showed that the present warming trend began prior to the major impact of the Industrial Revolution. Significant production of CO2 by humans began only after World War II....

(2) From Dr. Roy Spencer, On Natural Climate Variability and Climate Models, February 27th, 2015.

Global average surface temperature changes (as James Hansen has also stated), can only be due to 3 processes: (1) radiative forcing, (2) radiative feedback, and (3) changes in ocean vertical circulation, all of which can be addressed with a 1D model like ours.


(3) From Dr. Murry Salby, Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of 'a few tenths ofa degree, if at all', Hockey Schtick, March 24, 2015.

Fig. 1: History of change of the total global CO2 concentration per year (green) and only on the surface properties (temperature + humidity dominant parts) induced change in CO2 concentration (blue). Correlation coefficient of 0.93. In contrast to the natural CO2 emissions depend on the "surface properties", do not have the anthropogenic emissions.

...The man-made share of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a maximum of 30% (0-30%). The remainder is related to temperature changes, natural outgassing from the oceans, and to humidity.

The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model.

Man-made CO2 emissions increased a whopping 350% faster since 2002, yet the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere remained steady at ~2.1 ppm/yr, a "strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share....

(4) From Drs. Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt, Solar Cycle Weakening…And: German Analysis Shows ClimateModels Do Overestimate CO2 Forcing, NTZ, March 05, 2015

Figure 1: Solar activity of the current Cycle No. 24 in red, the mean value for all previously observed cycles is shown in blue, and the up to now similar Cycle No. 1 in black.


Enjoy 6 other beautiful charts here.

Here in the Philippines, I think more people now realize that glorifying darkness, even for one hour, is a stupid act. Hence, few people turned off their lights last night. If people think having darkness is a good act, then they should have earth hour every night, 365 hours a year, not just one hour a year. 

A friend, Selwyn, also  observed:

If someone already knows that atmospheric CO2 is readily convertible to carbonic acid in water (H2CO3) which converts to Bicarbonate (HCO3-) which converts to either Sodium Bicarbonate or the Carbonate ion (CO3-2) which ends up as Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3), also known as seashells, skeleton bones, coral reefs, chalk, and limestone, one would also know how quickly such a CO2 increase would quickly be absorbed by the environment. But since very few so-called "environmentalists" actually know science, it's very easy to make them panic. Boo!

Finally, here's a better celebration. More lights at night mean less road accidents, less crimes, less strained eyes by students and workers. The campaigners of "darkness to save the planet" do not realize the dangers to humanity of their advocacy. Or they realize it but they do not care. What is important for them is the advancement of their ecological central planning advocacy.
-------------

See also:
Earth Hour 1: Success in North Korea, March 28, 2010
Earth Hour 2: "Reduce Consumption of Power" -- WWF, March 18, 2011
Earth Hour 3: Letter to WWF-EH Campaign Leaders, March 21, 2011
Earth Hour 4: WWF-EH Censoring Critical Comments, March 30, 2011 

Earth Hour 5: Celebrating Darkness is not Wise, March 30, 2012

Climate Tricks 36: Avoid Looking at Data 450,000 Years Ago or Longer, December 29, 2014 
Climate Tricks 37: Climate Money and the Scientific Dishonesty Behind It, January 31, 2015

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Energy Econ 19: Wind Power, Feed in Tariff and Electricity Subsidy

The problem with militant environmentalism, case of Oriental Mindoro (including Puerto Galera, Calapan). With occasional brown outs and high electricity cost, a wind power company will supply power at P8,20/kwh.

But the distribution utility (DU), Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative (ORMECO) will pay the genco only P6.50/kwh. The difference of P1.70/kwh will be collected as universal charge for missionary electrification (UC-ME). It is not clear who are the energy consumers who will pay this, those in Oriental Mindoro or the rest of Luzon or those under Meralco franchise area.

Wind farms are entitled to a feed in tariff (FIT) of P8.53/kwh. If Oriental Mindoro will insist on having wind and solar or other renewables only, then they should be ready to pay for higher electricity while having occasional brown outs at the same time. 

 FIT for renewables, Philippines, Pesos per kilowatt hour


NREB Proposed
ERC Approved
Hydro, run of river
6.15
5.90
Biomass
7.00
6.63
Wind
10.37
8.53
Solar
17.95
9.68

Source: Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), rates approved July 27, 2012

There is another solution aside from slapping the rest of energy consumers with higher universal charge and FIT -- build conventional power plants like coal and natural gas. Mindoro island is just next to Palawan island where the Malampaya gas field is located. Cheap and stable power source. A 100 MW coal or nat-gas plant will deliver 100 MW. In contrast, a 100 MW wind farm will deliver only 20 MW on average, and yet charge higher to electricity consumers. 

But... but... but... some environmental militants would rather have brown outs and expensive electricity than have a coal power plant in Or. Mindoro. Report from Manila Standard.


So people who applaud the WWF, them campaigners of "glorify darkness for 1 hour", actually glorify darkness for many hours, IF the power plant does not come from their crony energy sources that require expensive FIT.

The WWF, Greenpeace, Oxfam, other militant environmentalists' goal, along with the UN, Al Gore and various environmental agencies of many governments worldwide, is global ecological central planning. To have more expensive electricity, and indirectly, less modernization to "save the planet." 

The WWF explicitly applauded the approval of FIT rates in 2012.










These guys are possibly high on too many fiction movies and novels. As of 2012, they projected that wind power in the Philippines can reach 7,400 MW by 2022. Data from the DOE show that total wind capacity in the whole country as of 2012-2013 was only 17-33 MW, all in Luzon. Another 67 MW supposedly to be online by September this year. And another 439 MW up to 2017, total of about 540 MW by 2017, too far from their fictional target of 7,400 MW.












Again, wind power on average produce only about 20 percent of their rated capacity. When there is no wind or it is too weak, power production is zero. When the wind is too strong, the turbine has to be disengaged and power production is zero. For communities and cities, shops and industrial zones that rely on wind or solar, they do not want even an hour of brown out, so they need back up power along with the renewables. Such back up power should come from peak load plants like diesel, not base load plants like coal that must run 24 hours day as much as possible. And this makes the cost of electricity become higher.

A friend, Todd Foster, commented,

All those people telling you to not build power plants to handle the upcoming disaster (yes, disaster, kiss your 7% growth rate goodbye) are themselves living luxuriously in societies that are swimming in power (relatively). Western leftists do not have your best interests at heart. Besides, cheap power will help in cleaning up real pollution, such as the incredibly dirty water.

Yes, and the big irony here in the anti-coal, anti-nuke, anti-nat gas, anti-"non-renewables" groups like WWF, is that they are clearly in direct conflict of interest. Take former DOE Sec. Vince Perez. His company owns the wind plants in Ilocos, that will benefit the FIT, sure revenue. Then he also chairs the WWF and WWF is an explicit campaigner for the implementation of RE law and FIT, see the link I gave above. The RE law was also enacted when he was the DOE Secretary.

Another friend, Ed Caryl, commented on that report on rare birds,

A coal plant will endanger birds and a windfarm won't? Trading a coal plant for a wind farm just increases the pollution in China, it doesn't reduce it. And what will be the backup power when the wind stops?

Ed also wrote this article in NTZ, among others.


by Ed Caryl, 26 March 2914


... This article will compare an ocean cycle, the Atlantic Multi-decadel Oscillation (AMO), and CO2 as temperature drivers over the last 133 years, since 1880. The annual temperature data is from GISS. The plots are scatter diagrams with temperature on the vertical axis and AMO index or CO2 atmospheric concentration on the horizontal axis.... 


--------

See also:

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Mining 16: CSR, WWF and Environmental Alarmism

The corporate social responsibility (CSR) of a company is to satisfy its (a) customers via good quality products and services at a good and competitive price, (b) workers via good pay and benefits and safe working conditions, (c) shareholders via good returns on  their investments. For companies in the extractive sector like oil, gas and mining, (d) minimize environmental damage and rehabilitation after site closure.

That's my own understanding or definition of CSR. I don't believe that a company has the "responsibility" to provide scholarships to poor students, conduct medical missions, reforestation, etc. while it bleeds its employees with super low wages and dangerous working conditions, or produce lousy or over-priced products and services to its customers. Any PR services like giving scholarships, medical missions, etc. should be done after satisfying the three (or four) important players in the company. My previous articles on the subject are here,
CSR as "mandatory requirement" = extortionism, April 05, 2006 
CSR of a company is to make profit, March 03, 2011.

Nonetheless, drawing up a CSR varies from one company or industry association to another, there is no single "CSR for all companies" in a given industry, sector or country. And it's good to have variety and diversity in how companies and private enterprises define their own CSR. 

During the Mining Conference 2012 in Sofitel Hotel last September, a presentation by the Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis (IDEAS), CSR Mining Scorecard Initiatives: Zooming in on the CSR Industry Scorecard, these slides were among those shown.


CSR of the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP), and its CSR Guidebook. Each of the six pillars of the Code have "elements" and details. 



The “Australian Minerals Industry Code for Environmental Management” or "The Code‟ of 1996. This is to ensure that the country's practices in uranium mining, milling and rehabilitation meet world-class standards.


And South Africa's “Broad-based Socio-economic Empowerment Charter” (BBSEE), with a vision of  "A globally competitive mining industry that draws on the human and financial resources of all South Africa's people and offers real benefits to all South Africans."   




Then it has a scorecard for SA's mining industry focusing on human resource development, and employment equity.

What caught my attention in Australia's Code is that "The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) stepped in to review the Code in 1999, coming up with a scorecard to have a more concrete basis in reviewing performance and adherence of companies to the Code."

Monday, September 24, 2012

Energy Econ 7: Renewables, FIT, RPS and Climate

Two months ago, I had a friendly discourse with fellow UPSE alumni in our yahoogroups about the Renewable Energy (RE) law, the feed in tariff (FIT), renewable portfolio standards (RPS), the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and climate.

Very civil discourse focused on content and issues, not personalities. Unlike in my recent debate with some anti-coal fanatics who cannot sustain a debate on issues and would quickly slide into personally attacking those who support a coal power plant or those who cast doubts on the renewables. See the 23+ pages debate here,  Energy Econ 6: Intolerance in Anti-Coal Hysteria, Cadiz Coal Project, September 17, 2012.

Before that, let me insert this good chart about the estimated generation cost of various power sources in the US about four years from now.


Source: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
Reposted with discussion by Willis Eschenbach, The Dark Future of Solar ElectricityDecember 03, 2011.

Here is our discussion. The related tables and charts mentioned here are posted in my article,
Energy Econ 2: Renewable Energy and High Electricity Prices, July 30, 2012.



I am inserting below some photos of wind and solar farms, both the cute and the ugly. Another long paper, about 11 pages including the two images, enjoy!
------------  

July 28-30, 2012

Eto na, eto na, how climate alarmism and racket would further rob more money from us, energy consumers.

The guys who were clapping their hands in making our energy prices become even higher are among the champions of climate alarmism racket:

See my brief discussion how Tony la Vina, WWF and Greenpeace fear of being followed even on twitter by people who question their warming religion,

The WB and ADB climate and energy loans racket should be jumping also with joy with this development. 

About 2 or 3 years ago, PDE organized a forum in UPSE about "burning planet and climate mitigation" something like that. The 2 speakers were the head of the Carbon Finance Solutions (CAFIS) and the chief economist of ADB, a Japanese I think. Among those who gave welcome remarks were SE faculty member and now NEDA chief Arsi Balisacan and Prof. Noel de Dios.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 20: Flooding and Global Cooling

* This is my article yesterday in TV5's news portal,
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/40229/fat-free-economics-flooding-and-global-cooling
----------

More rains and floods are indicators of global cooling, not warming. Many campaigners of anthropogenic global warming or its cousin, the man-made climate change, argue however that less rain and more drought is an indicator of AGW, even as they claim that more rain and flooding is also an indicator of AGW.

It is irrational to argue that less rain and more rain, less flood and more flood, less typhoon and more typhoon, less snow and more snow, are all indicators of AGW and CC. The argument given by the AGW campaigners is that with a warming world, there is more drought and less rain. Fine. But they later added that a warming planet causes more water evaporation from the oceans, in turn forming more rain clouds that cause heavy rains.

Before probing deeper into the inconsistency and dishonesty of the above claims, let us briefly review the flooding that hit Metro Manila and many other provinces of the country early this week. Interaksyon.com reported that more than 540,000 families or more than two million people have been affected and some 60 people have died of drowning, landslides and related catastrophe.

Below are two charts of the sea surface temperature or SST anomaly, a “deviation from the normal” temperature, as of this week (upper image) and last week (lower image). The Philippines as of August 9, 2012 had a temperature anomaly or divergence of between -0.5 and -1.5 degrees centigrade, meaning colder than normal. This weather pattern also affected many Northeast and Southeast Asian countries, down to northern Australia. El Nino has actually resumed since around June this year after almost two years of La Nina, yet many parts of the Pacific Ocean still have colder than normal conditions.

The lower image shows SST anomaly from another source, as of August 1, 2012 or last week. The Philippines had between 0.5 and 1.0 degrees centigrade colder than normal temperature that time, especially the northern and eastern parts of Luzon. A big part of the Indian Ocean had between zero and 1.0 degree centigrade warmer than normal temperature, or the average SST from 1971 to 2000.

Sources: Upper image: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/anomnight.current.gif, Lower image: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/wksst/5.gif

Determining whether the planet is entering a La Nina or El Nino condition is based on the SST anomaly in Pacific Ocean’s Nino region 3.4 shown in upper left photo below. It comprises the biggest and central part of the Pacific Ocean, which comprises about a third of the planet’s total surface area, and larger than all landmass and continents combined.

Images from upper right clockwise represent the SST anomaly for Nino 3.4 over (a) last five years, (b) last 12 years, and (c) last 62 years. It is clear here that there is no such thing as “unprecedented warming” in the world’s biggest ocean, that it was a natural cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, each phase lasting for a few years. So the statement of AGW campaigners like the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and many other groups and institutions, of “unprecedented warming” or “unequivocal warming” is simply not true, that they have been dishonest to the public.


Source: WUWT’s ENSO Page, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/

Let us review air temperature, particularly the troposphere, the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere, and the stratosphere, the second layer after the troposphere. From satellite data interpreted separately by the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the Remote Sensing System, global troposphere temperature anomaly, or divergence from the normal temperature, was generally rising from 1979 when satellite data was first gathered. But if one will plot a linear trend starting from around 2000 up to the present, a flat-lining, if not decline in global temperature can be observed.

In the stratosphere though, the trend over the past few decades has been a temperature fall or global cooling at the second layer of the planet’s atmosphere.


Sources (from top left, clockwise): UAH, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif, RSS data, WUWT’s Atmospheric Page, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmosphere/

In combined land surface plus sea surface temperature anomalies as gathered by HadCRUT data sets, the trend from 2000 to the present is flat, or slightly declining or cooling.


Source: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2012/trend

Finally, let us compare the climate projections by the UN IPCC vis-a-vis actual temperature anomaly. Below, the upper photo shows a huge divergence between the two as the global air temperature has started to flatten, then descend in the middle of the last decade.

Lower photo shows a disconnect or absence of “causality” between carbon dioxide emission and global air temperature. As the former keeps rising to nearly 400 parts per million, the global air temperature from January 2002 to July 2012 was declining or cooling by around 0.03 degrees centigrade per decade.


Sources: Upper graph: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/joe-bastardi-weighs-in-on-the-watts-muller-scuffle/, Lower graph: http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

Thus, there is dishonesty on the part of the UN and its climate and environmental bodies – IPCC, FCCC, UNEP, WMO, among the major ones, along with Al Gore, the big environmental NGOs like WWF and Greenpeace.

Before, they were telling the public to prepare for more drought and rising ocean due to the “alarming ice melt/loss” in both the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica. Recently they reversed gear and now say that the public should prepare for more rains. There are many negative implications for the lousy analysis and projections by the warming camp. Among them are the following:

- One, creation of carbon taxes, stricter environmental and energy regulations regarding the use and consumption of fossil fuel and other carbon-emitting vehicles and power plants;

- Two, creation of many new climate bureaucracies. Here in the Philippines, among those newly created bodies purportedly to “fight climate change” aside from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources are the Climate Change Commission, National Renewable Energy Board, NDRRMC, and many other climate offices and bureaucracies at the local government levels;

- Three, contracting billions of dollars of climate and energy loans from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to help “save the planet.” At a time when our public debt is already at a high level, about 40 percent of GDP, expanding the government debt for some phony and unnecessary program is bad public policy.

The government should instead use more money to dredge creeks, rivers and lakes, as we expect more rains and more floods, in fact worse than what we have experienced so far. Global warming and cooling phases last for several decades, not just a few years. Let the strong flood and rain water move faster to the ocean so that flooding of many streets and residential areas in the country will be significantly controlled and minimized.

Lastly, let us build more dams. Projections like lack of water that can trigger future conflict between and among countries and people are unrealistic. What we experience is too much water with more frequent heavy rains. Government need not build more dams. Let private corporations, real estate developers build more dams, small to medium size ones to minimize dislodging upland dwellers and cultural minorities. More dams will impound more floodwater while ensuring steady flow of water for the public, from ordinary households to rice farmers needing more irrigation, or small hydro power plants.

Global cooling will spawn more flooding, possibly more severe and more catastrophic than what we have experienced so far. Let climate realism reverse the damage and uncover the intellectual dishonesty of climate alarmist groups.
----------

See also:
Climate Tricks 11: Coal and James Hansen, RE Law and the WWF, July 18, 2012
Climate Tricks 12: More Flooding is Caused by Warming, July 21, 2012
Climate Tricks 13: Block Skeptics and Keep Fooling the Public, July 25, 2012
Climate Tricks 14: Flooding, El Nino and Arctic Ice, August 08, 2012
Climate Tricks 15: AGW Fiction, Avoiding Natural Climate Drivers, August 12, 2012



Fat-Free Econ 18: Healthcare Corruption and Physician Entanglement, July 30, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 19: Population Decontrol, Not RH Bill, August 06, 2012